We performed a comparison between JSCAPE by Redwood and Kiteworks based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Managed File Transfer (MFT) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The product's most valuable feature is the high availability clustering."
"Valuable features include a comprehensive management UI and a strictly controlled managed file transfer."
"JSCAPE's automation can obliterate manual file transfer processes, salvaging precious time and vanquishing the chances of errors."
"It is easy to transfer large sets of files."
"One of the standout features of this particular tool is its automation capabilities."
"The JSCAPE MFT Server offers support for diverse protocols such as FTP(S), SFTP, SCP, AFTP, OFTP, and TFPT."
"The speed of transferring large datasets is super quick, which allows us to work on multiple tasks at a time."
"Automating and managing the file transfer using JSCAPE has decreased the manual interventions necessary and increased the organization's efficiency and productivity."
"The solution can be used remotely; it's easy to upload and share files."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to send a large file of 30 GB in size and more. In Outlook and other email applications, you cannot send files that are larger than 20 MB. But with Kiteworks, 30 GB is transferable by default and, with the proper approval, a file of up to 100 GB can be sent. It makes file transfer very easy and smooth."
"The solution removes the limitations with file attachment size that is found with regular email."
"We could see whether the customer with whom we shared a file had downloaded it, which was not available with GitHub."
"The most valuable aspect of Kiteworks is undoubtedly the private content network. This feature is particularly beneficial for us. Furthermore, it serves as a centralized platform that enables us to track and manage our information exchange."
"The top two features are the two-factor authentication, which is pretty good. It's easily understood by the users. And their API is rather robust. We have numerous integrations that work off the API."
"I like Kiteworks or Accellion because it's continuously upgraded. I also know that it probably works with a lot of clients."
"We can see when people are sending things. We can definitely see who is sending to whom. From the administrative logs, we can see who is sending to an outside entity, and those logs are retained for quite a while."
"The JSCAPE team could create detailed documents or blogs on how to troubleshoot certain errors that come over in integration with existing environment tools."
"They could create an in-depth document so that any user with little to no background can implement this and use the software effectively."
"The documentation part can be improved to be more precise for beginners to understand the advanced features of the tool."
"Setup is time-consuming."
"Improving the error handling feature can help users to identify and resolve issues more quickly and efficiently."
"The initial setup is a bit hectic during the installation."
"The GUI has to be enhanced."
"Providing initial guidance would help new users to understand the UI."
"There are always issues when there are bugs or upgrades. The challenge with upgrading is getting more storage from the customer. Every time we have a new version, it requires additional storage. This means that the customer would need to procure more storage for their server, which they don't like because it means additional cost to them. So, I think my request would be that the version upgrades don't require any significant storage requirement."
"We have experienced a few hiccups and bugs when using the admin console and from a user perspective."
"In my experience, their technical support can be a little slow."
"File location could be improved."
"It would be nice if Kiteworks could provide a free version of the platform so that it could be used for a certain number of file transfers. We could be charged a fee if we exceeded the number of allotted file transfers."
"I would like to see immediate releases of fixes because now it takes at least a week. If that time span can be reduced to one day or two days, that would be very helpful for users so that things are sorted and transactions work smoothly."
"The one feature, which I have also requested directly to Kiteworks, is to have a scheduled upgrade function. Currently, one of my engineers logs in after hours for the upgrade. We're a hospital, and we're 24/7, but the primary users are seven to five. So, we log in the early evening just to push a button to tell it to do the update. It would be nice if that could be very easily scheduled."
"There is no offboarding process for end-users in Kiteworks. It's a manual process. There is no automated syncing with LDAP and checking to see if the account is still active. It's a manual process to get people out of here, which isn't the best way."
JSCAPE by Redwood is ranked 8th in Managed File Transfer (MFT) with 21 reviews while Kiteworks is ranked 6th in Managed File Transfer (MFT) with 12 reviews. JSCAPE by Redwood is rated 9.0, while Kiteworks is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of JSCAPE by Redwood writes "Versatile, streamlines the entire file transfer procedure, and offers good support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kiteworks writes "A unified, secure way to share sensitive content, with no file size limitations". JSCAPE by Redwood is most compared with MOVEit, Fortra's GoAnywhere MFT, Control-M and ActiveBatch by Redwood, whereas Kiteworks is most compared with Sterling Commerce Connect:Direct, MOVEit, Fortra's GoAnywhere MFT, SharePoint and ownCloud. See our JSCAPE by Redwood vs. Kiteworks report.
See our list of best Managed File Transfer (MFT) vendors.
We monitor all Managed File Transfer (MFT) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.